Could George Lazenby have been better than connery?

13»

Comments

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    Much as I like Lazenby in OHMSS and think his vulnerability worked for the film, Connery is a different class. Look at him in the early films, he makes it look so easy.

    You've disproven your own point: 'Look at him in the early films.'

    Yes the Connery of DN and FRWL in OHMSS would have been superb. But the disenchanted, bored and phoned in efforts of half of TB, YOLT and DAF? No thanks. I'll take Laz every time.

    I'd go as far to say it would have ruined the film we got as starting in GF and proceeding through TB to YOLT Connery stopped playing Fleming's character and just played partly himself and partly the cinematic Bond of Rog and Broz - the wisecracking superman. This portrayal for OHMSS would have been awful.

    Tim of TLD and Dan of CR would have been perfect in OHMSS as would early Sean, but Sean with where he was with the character in 1969 would have been detrimental to the masterpiece we ended up with.

    I meant Connery simply as an actor. You can't compare them in acting ability but Lazenby worked a lot better in OHMSS than Connery would have done because as you say, his portrayal had become a 'wisecracking superman'
  • Posts: 2,341
    Years ago (and at the time( the seventies and into the eighties) Bond fanatics always bemoaned the fact that Connery was not in OHMSS now considered by many to be a top 5 Bond adventure. (The film did not start to be highly regarded until the Nineties.)

    Now years later, people everywhere can look at the subject and we all seem to agree:
    Connery was not right in 1968-69 and could never have pulled off this superb film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    The way they took the character in the 60's with Connery probably would have made it more difficult for him to pivot to a vulnerable Bond, true.

    In some ways, this kind of meaningful story is best told with a 'fresh' actor, as was also the case with CR, come to think of it. A clean slate in the audience's mind, as it were.
  • edited July 2016 Posts: 533
    I don't have the foggiest idea. To be honest, I don't consider Connery, Lazenby or any of the other four Bonds to be the best. As long as each actor was good - and they were, including Lazenby - I have nothing further to say.
  • edited July 2016 Posts: 1,469
    I agree with the last posts from OHMSS69 and bondjames. To me it's like Connery was a Bond of his time...same with Roger Moore...probably with all of them. Craig might have another one in him. It's interesting...I just got done watching Goldfinger, and before that Thunderball. I do find Connery more relaxed in TB--that's how I'd put it anyway--not disinterested or phoning it in. Not sure how I'd compare his performance in YOLT, and DAF is not one of my faves...my memory is that he's past his prime in that one. Though again, I enjoyed NSNA. I'm sure some of it comes down to the script/story and our personal preferences.

    On the OP's question, I don't think Lazenby could've been better than Connery, though I really like Lazenby in OHMSS, and I admit that's the only thing I've seen him in. Connery's talent was natural, he had good "range", and that range allowed him to headline Bond stories over several years.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    No. But Lazenby was a good Bond nevertheless.
  • KaijuDirectorOO7KaijuDirectorOO7 Once Upon a Time Somewhere...
    Posts: 189
    Don't think so, but part of me thinks that DAF might have been better with George. That and l liked the idea of Tracy getting shot at the beginning of DAF.
  • Posts: 1,052
    One of the big problems with Lazenby is the vocal performance. His accent is just rubbish and makes everything he says seem a bit awkward and wooden.
  • JohnHammond73JohnHammond73 Lancashire, UK
    edited July 2016 Posts: 4,151
    Difficult question to answer as, based on just the one movie (and a top 3 one for me at that), we could never tell. I have no doubt that, if he'd stayed around, he would have been a mighty fine Bond.
  • Posts: 17,743
    With just the one movie, that would be a difficult question to answer. Had Lazenby done one more, we could at least draw comparisons to Dalton.

    I do however, find that he brought something to his portrayal of Bond. The script gave him the chance to give us a vulnerable Bond, unlike what we've seen before, and he solved that brilliantly. The other thing I find interesting with his portrayal, is how brutal his fights are. Where Connery's fighting is brutal, yet controlled, Lazenby's fighting's more (in lack of a better word) incalculable, and therefore more dangerous.

    I think Lazenby could have been a real good Bond. Better than Connery? Perhaps not. But he brought an element of danger that could not be matched until Craig's portrayal of Bond in CR.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Nothing Connery did after the first three was as good as Lazenby.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    No, simply because he couldn't act.

    His arrogance is what cost him.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    No, simply because he couldn't act.

    I simply don t understand this criticism. He isn t too good with some of the lighthearted stuff, but you can say the same about Dalton and Craig.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited May 2019 Posts: 3,497
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    No, simply because he couldn't act.

    I simply don t understand this criticism. He isn t too good with some of the lighthearted stuff, but you can say the same about Dalton and Craig.

    I'm not saying "de worst acting evah", but if the rest of the move wasn't as good as it turned out to be...

    He thought that "to play Bond I must become an over the top arrogant ruthless bastard".

  • edited May 2019 Posts: 1,661
    I think the all-time greatest Bond performance of the entire franchise is in Doctor No when

    1) Bond visits charms Miss Taro in her house, he is dominant with her in bed and then finds out she's part of No's scheme to kill Bond. He calls the police.

    2) Bond kills Professor Dent.

    3) Bond mocking No at the dinner table "Our asylums are full of people that think they're God."

    I'd say those examples represent the ultimate personification of the film Bond. The first film got it so right. Obviously the writers have to take a lot of credit, Doctor No is a wonderful screenplay, and Connery nailed it in a genius like way. Had Moore starred in Doctor No he may have captured that vibe. Sometimes it's down to luck and good timing. Connery got the role first so had an advantage.

    I don't think Lazenby would have been a better Bond in terms of capturing Bond's hard, cold approach to his job. Connery nailed it first - that's just the way it was - but it's possible, given decent scripts, Lazenby could have been a more rounded, human Bond than Connery's version. I guess Lazenby could have outdone Connery in the human stakes aspect of Bond's personality. Lazenby's Bond out for revenge in DAF, perhaps Bond finding a new love to replace Tracy in DAF? We'll never know what could have been!

    Things were changing in the 1970s. I don't think Broccoli and Saltzman would have wanted to explore Bond's more human side. They explored it in OHMSS because that's what Fleming put down on paper, but I can't imagine several Lazenby 70s films depicting an emotional Bond. Lazenby's Bond is so weird when you look at the entire franchise. It's a brief moment in time and then gone. Could he have become a more Moore type Bond had he continued? Would he have stuck closer to the Connery mould? I have no idea.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Jill St John had been dating Lazenby, so wonder how the chemistry would have been had they still cast her against him.
  • edited May 2019 Posts: 7,507
    Oh, come on! I know Lazenby has got a lot of undeserved flak through the years and been underrated in circles. But this is just silly! Don't even go there...
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,400
    Lazenby better then Connery? Nope I don't see that ever happening. I like George and his performance in OHMSS. But become a better actor then Sean I don't see that happening.

    George was dealt a bad hand and then compounded the bad hand by making his own mistakes.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    One of the big problems with Lazenby is the vocal performance. His accent is just rubbish and makes everything he says seem a bit awkward and wooden.

    Nail on the head.

    With his debut in 1962’s Dr. No, Connery memorably laid the foundation for a 007 that has withstood the test of time. With his rugged good looks, charm and charisma, Connery set the sophisticated style of how Bond looked, dressed, wooed women, drank, used a gun and drove a car.

    He was playful one minute and ruthless the next; a refined tough guy that also infused the role with wry humor and knowing looks. He went on to star in six more James Bond movies, cementing how we think of the on-screen character. He’s come to represent the epitome of 007, and every other Bond since Connery can’t help but be compared to him. Plus, as portrayed by Connery, James Bond was selected as the third-greatest hero in cinema history by the American Film Institute.

    Lazenby did an admirable job in a brilliant film. But his voice, swagger, Australian heritage, inferior acting ability/ screen presence make him inferior to Connery. OHMSS could be the best Bond film, but Connery is the best Bond.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    Better? No, but he could have grown very nicely into the role. Accent aside, which isn't a real problem for me, I liked his voice, screen presence and the swagger he brought to the role. While inexperienced, his acting is solid and would have improved in time.
    I wouldn't want to have missed out on Roger's tenure, but it interesting to contemplate the direction that the franchise would have taken with Lazenby; it would have been much more physical with less cheeky humor.
  • Posts: 787
    Laz moves beautifully, I'll give him that. It's really something to see him in motion.

    On the other hand, I just think that overdubbing his voice was always going to be fatal. When it's done really well (see Frobe in GF) it can work in small doses. But anchoring your franchise with a guy who literally doesn't speak his own lines? Unsustainable.
Sign In or Register to comment.